Too Immature To Get a Mental Health Diagnosis, But Not to Give Birth?

The Kansas State Board of Healing has been holding a disciplinary hearing for Dr. Ann Neuhaus, who is being accused of negligence in her performance of mental health exams for 11 patients who received late abortions from Dr. George Tiller.

All of the patients involved in the accusation are between the ages of 10 and 18, and the prosecution brought in a physiological expert to prove that Neuhaus’ exams were not in-depth enough. Instead, the expert seems to have proven that pregnant little girls should always give birth.

In case files #7 and #11, teens were assigned a mental disorder ranking equivalent to the medical emergency grounds for involuntary commitment! Yet these girls were marched off to late abortions and sent away without follow up care plans.

In the case file #3, Neuhaus diagnosed a 15-year-old as exhibiting “major depression, single episode.” The girl’s stated reasons for the late abortion were, “horses are my life and having kids would mess that up for barrel racing” and she couldn’t bear “not being able to continue riding in the rodeo.”

In case file #2, a 10-year old victim of rape/incest categorized as suicidal was given the same numerical “impairment rating” as that of #3, an unhappy 15 year old with a boyfriend. Gold exclaimed that it is virtually impossible for those two situations to be equivalent, much less– due to the lack of documentation and the verbal and emotional immaturity of children– to assess the true situation.

Girls in case files #5 and #6 were ashamed to be seen outside pregnant– an understandable, temporary condition that is not symptomatic of a psychological disorder, explained Gold. Teen #6 spoke only French, and there was no notation whether Neuhaus used a translator.

Of all of these claims, the comments in case #2 are the most disturbing. If the children are too verbally and emotionally immature to “assess the true situation,” how could they a) be ready to give birth and b) be able to adequately participate in their own assessment in the first place? Wouldn’t it be difficult enough to believe every girl’s ability to assess their own mental distress — let alone her ability to give birth? Additionally, that the “shame” of being seen pregnant was seen as simply a “temporary condition” gives a clear picture of the fact that the anti-choicers believe there is no such thing as a mental health exception.

Dr. Gold’s own comments, which, according to Operation Rescue were stricken from the record, also shows a disturbing lack of belief on the part of the doctor that abortion is ever allowable.

On cross-examination by Neuhaus’ attorney, Robert Eye, questioned Dr. Gold about standard of care for mental health evaluations for late-term abortions. Gold replied that there is no such thing. She explained, “Late term abortion is not a treatment or intervention for any psychiatric condition.” That statement was initially stricken from the record at Mr. Eye’s request, but Dr. Gold continued to repeat her opinion on the record when asked.

When questioned about whether she had ever admitted a patient to the hospital for a late-term abortion Dr. Gold responded, “It would be inappropriate for a psychiatrist to admit a patient to a hospital for abortion services.” That comment was also stricken from the record.

When asked if an unwanted pregnancy put a teen at risk for developing psychiatric disorders, Gold was emphatic.

“Teen pregnancy is not a risk factor for psychiatric disorders,” she said.

Girls under the age of eighteen should never be forced to be pregnant and give birth, they are children, and children’s bodies should not be used and abused for any reason even to pleasure misogynistic pro-forced-birth perverts.

The only thing that makes a pro-lifer hornier then a twenty five year old giving birth is a fifteen-year-old girl giving birth.

This is sadomasochistic misogynistic child porn.

I was sexually abused as a little girl and I know pro-lifers do not give a damn about me, then or now.

Pro-lifers treat under age raped girls like shit. ~

progo35

Moreover, people ages 10-15 absolutely are too immature to give birth, but given that Dr. Tiller’s method of very, very late term abortion (which is what these abortions were-that’s why a second opinion was required) was killing the fetus with an injection of digjoxin into its heart and then inducing labor, these kids would undergo the labor process anyway, making the “trauma of giving birth” argument a moot poot. Same physical process, different result-a stillborn baby.

Furthermore, Roe v. Wade was not meant to give females the complete right to abort a pregnancy at any point in the process-it clearly articulates the position that the state has a vested interest in protecting fetal life in the second and third trimesters and may therefore restrict abortion on those grounds. Why? Because we all know a life when we see one. A 30-week-old fetus isn’t a “blob of tissue” or a “parasite.” People who pretend that it is are, IMO, being intellectually dishonest.

Is this your professional opinion as a licensed mental health-care practitioner?

progo35

No, it’s my observation of the author’s opinion, PCF.

prochoiceferret

very, very late term abortion (which is what these abortions were-that’s why a second opinion was required)

The article only mentions that these are “late abortions.” Where are you getting your information fromL

these kids would undergo the labor process anyway, making the “trauma of giving birth” argument a moot poot. Same physical process, different result-a stillborn baby.

So, in other words, you don’t know how late-term abortions are performed.

Furthermore, Roe v. Wade was not meant to give females the complete right to abort a pregnancy at any point in the process-it clearly articulates the position that the state has a vested interest in protecting fetal life in the second and third trimesters and may therefore restrict abortion on those grounds.

It’s in the third trimester (the estimated beginning of “viability”) that the state can restrict abortion, and even then, the health of the mother trumps such restrictions.

Why? Because we all know a life when we see one.

Funny, I didn’t see that argument in Roe v. Wade. And knowing a life when we see one doesn’t exactly make a difference when it comes to self-defense, war, or the death penalty, does it?

A 30-week-old fetus isn’t a “blob of tissue” or a “parasite.” People who pretend that it is are, IMO, being intellectually dishonest.

Right, because there’s no need to pretend. If you want real intellectual dishonesty, look to the folks who would call that same fetus “a *person*, just like you and me!”

progo35

I DO know how late term abortions were performed. Kansas law allows abortion up to 24 weeks, no questions asked. Hence, any abortion that required the certification of another practitioner was after that time period. A very, very late term abortion. A description of Tiller’s practice on this very site says that digoxin and induction were used for these procedures. “At WHCS, procedures performed late in pregnancy were done by induction, defined in a leading medical textbook as “the termination of pregnancy by stimulation of labor-like contractions that cause eventual expulsion of the fetus and placenta from the uterine cavity.” http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/08/14/working-tiller-staff-recollections-women-health-care-services-wichita. The article also says, “After this group meeting, Dr. Tiller met privately with each woman, couple or family to answer questions. The first day then proceeded with lab work and a meeting with a second physician, who, as required by Kansas law, would affirm patients’ eligibility for a post–24-week abortion.” So, ALL THE ABORTIONS referenced in this article were after twenty four weeks, or else a second physician woudld not have been involved. The article then states, “Then patients underwent what staff considered one of the most emotionally difficult experiences of their stay at WHCS: an ultrasound followed by an injection of digoxin, a heart medicine, administered in a dose that causes fetal demise without affecting the mother.” So, these abortions were performed via this method. Don’t be snotty and pretend that people don’t know what they are talking about because their ideology doesn’t match your own!

prochoiceferret

So, these abortions were performed via this method. Don’t be snotty and pretend that people don’t know what they are talking about because their ideology doesn’t match your own!

No, you get ferret snot because you say some things about abortion that are accurate (ultrasound, digoxin) and some that are complete hogwash (uterine contractions are involved anyway, so they could just give birth normally instead and it would be the same exact thing, only without a dead baby!).

progo35

So, please explain to me why my assessment is wrong-why are uterine contractions not uterine contractions regardless of the state of the resulting baby (alive or dead)? Why is the physical process of giving birth different when it results in a dead baby? (and it does, this isn’t a mutilated fetus we’re talking about, but an otherwise intact, albeit dead, baby.) What makes uterine contractions leading to a dead baby different and a less traumatic experience than that which results in a live baby?

forced-birth-rape

Progo do you think girls under the age of eighteen should be forced to give birth?

jennifer-starr

I remember my body at 10-11 years old. I was about 4 foot 7 and all of eighty pounds. The idea of forcing someone that age to go through a pregnancy and birth that they are never going to be physically and emotionally prepared for is nothing short of barbaric. I recall the case of the 9 year old pregnant with twins via incest who had an abortion–the so-called pro-life sect was mourning her ‘babies’ and didn’t appear to give a damn about her. Quite typical.

progo35

If the baby is past the point of viability and the pregnancy doesn’t pose a threat to their life, than most definitely yes. Doing so is not “rape,” because something is going to come out of their vagina whether or not it’s dead baby or a live one. Moreover, “Under the age of 18″ is very broad. A nine year old probably cannot give birth without posing a serious threat to her life.(Although, once again, if she is going to go through the same physical process that she would giving birth, than there is no medical reason for the baby’s death, and therefore birth should occur, because it’s the SAME PHYSICAL PROCESS. In order for it to be done to preserve the life/health of the prenant girl, an abortion would be one performed at, say, 14 weeks via vaccuum aspiration, not 28 via induction, when the process has the same impact on the girl’s body.). A sixteen-year old girl is no longer a young child and can therefore give birth without the anticipation of life-threatening, age-related complications.

crowepps

Delivering at one or one and a half pounds is much easier physically on a person’s body than delivering at six to eight pounds.

One reason doctors induce labor early is to forestall 10 and 11 pound births, which raise the risks of delivery considerably.

forced-birth-rape

It is RAPE! Do not tell me what RAPE is. I do not want any little girls I have living and growing up in your extrme pro torture of the female race world.

Just because you have a pornographic fetish with pregnancy and birth does not mean you get to push it on under age girls.

Girls under the age of eighteen are not for marriage, sex, or breeding even though misogynistic perverts want them to be.

progo35

Yes, Crowepps, and when these labors are induced, they DON”T INJECT THE BABY’s HEART WITH DIGOXIN. That is done specifically to kill the baby before it is born-there is no medical reason to do this. Moreover, these abortions took place well after 24 weeks, when the fetus is considerably larger than 1.5 pounds. Otherwise, the second opinion would have been unecessary.

progo35

Again, by your logic, a late term abortion is rape, too, because a fetus is still coming out of the girl’s vagina. It’s just that in that case, the fetus is dead, whereas in a birth, the fetus is alive. Your logic does not hold up. You would do well to make arguments logically rather than appealing to irrational accusations and unfettered emotion.

forced-birth-rape

Force is what makes it RAPE!

crowepps

I have no information on these cases, I would be absolutely appalled if the medical professionals involved revealed enough information about the cases so people not involved could gossip about the patients and their motivations, and so I have no opinion on the decisions made. In my opinion, the judge in this case should have protected the identity of these children by taking the testimony which might enable someone to identify them in a closed courtroom and then sealing it.

My intent was to address only your question about why it would be physically safer for girls to deliver earlier, and my understanding is that it is because small is much, much physically easier to get through the pelvic girdle than large.

forced-birth-rape

Church excommunicates mother of 9-year-old rape victim – but not accused rapist

You would do well to make arguments logically rather than appealing to irrational accusations and unfettered emotion.

She does just fine. You? Not so much

progo35

By that logic, then, anything involves force = rape.

progo35

We don’t know who the children are, nor should we, but knowing details of what an anonymous person did in these cases does not result in their privacy being violated. And, I do think society has a right to know if somone is performing post viability abortions so that someone can play sports, which is why the abortion was performed in at least one case.

progo35

We don’t know who the children are, nor should we, but knowing details of what an anonymous person did in these cases does not result in their privacy being violated. And, I do think society has a right to know if somone is performing post viability abortions so that someone can play sports, which is why the abortion was performed in at least one case.

progo35

I also should clarify and say that I do not consider girls aged 14-18 “little girls,” nor do I think that the physical state of 14-18-year old adolescents should be conflated with that of a 10-year-old child.

jennifer-starr

Technically 18 is an adult. I use the word technically because most 18 year olds are under the impression that they’re more grown up than they actually are. It was two decades ago for me, but yes I still remember. And someone aged 14 to 17 is still very much a child in many ways. Many teens that age are in no way mentally or physically prepared for the demands of pregnancy or chid-rearing. And children aged 10-13 are definitely not ready in any sense of the word.

colleen

It does not matter what you think. It matters what the law says and science has concluded. The notion that 14 year olds are physically mature and have the same legal rights and responsibilities as 18 year olds is profoundly disturbing and patently untrue.

How eager y’all are to sit in abusive judgement over the lives of others and particularly the most weak and vulnerable.

jennifer-starr

Personally I don’t think it’s any of society’s business. I know that in the age of reality TV we’ve become a very voyeuristic society, but I don’t see any ‘right to know’ in this matter. It should be dealt with privately between the girl, her doctor and her family.

And Progo, has it ever occurred to you that these reasons sound somewhat childish because they are in fact given by children? If I were say, 12 to 13 years old, I might give the reason that I don’t want to be pregnant so I can do gymnastics and ballet, go to the roller rink and play outside with my friends. Which is what children that age want to do. Because they’re children who aren’t ready to take on adult responsibilities.

crowepps

It is possible for attorneys to find an expert who is willing to say just about anything that attorney wants them to say if he shops around long enough. This case makes that crystal clear because they actually managed to fine someone willing to get on the stand, a professional trained as a psychologist, who was willing to say that it is impossible to evaluate the mental health of the immature, thereby invalidating the entire field of pediatric psychology and labeling every counselor of children in the country a quack. Or alternatively, someone who believes that only PREGNANT children are impossible to figure out, an even more fringe and indefensible position.

In this as in every other case, the circumstances and the mental and physical health of the individual person sitting in front of the individual doctor is what matters, and it is absolutely impossible for any other doctor, without having actually been present to hear the interview, to have an opinion with a high degree of medical certainty as to whether that patient’s mental health required the procedure. In psychology, the patient’s affect is 50% of the diagnosis. It is absolutely impossible for ANYONE to have certainty about how big these girls were, how physically mature they were, how psychologically fragile they were, or how credible the claim is that the pregnancy was the result of incest or rape. As anyone who’s ever sat outside a school and watched the girls leave can testify, age does not correlate well to physical size or to mental and emotional maturity.

As I read the article about this legal procedure, they have been harassing this woman for YEARS because she provided care in coordination with Dr. Tiller, and this is the best evidence they could come up with. 11 cases. Over at least an 8 year period. Out of how many total we aren’t told. About which the witness testified that it was virtually impossible “due to the lack of documentation and the verbal and emotional immaturity of children– to assess the true situation” because this witness uses a different method of keeping records and doesn’t like computer generated trees and that means they shouldn’t be in the chart. The witness cites petty details like “didn’t say whether sleep disturbance was too much or too little”. This isn’t about ‘should these girls have been allowed to have abortions’ but instead about ‘did this psychologist do a good job of constructing a chart that she could defend in court’. If the psychologist was dishonest, I’m sure she would have done exactly that. If the psychologist was just doing a rubber stamp, I’m sure these charts would be absolutely perfect, and there wouldn’t have been those cases where she determined that, no, they should not be done, and they were not done.

It’s also pretty obvious to anybody reading even LifeSite’s sympathetic synopsis that this witness has some very peculiar ideas, as for instance the purported huge difference between the cases of the “10-year old victim of rape/incest categorized as suicidal” and the “unhappy 15 year old with a boyfriend” since so far as I’m aware, no competent mental health expert is going to conclude that having a boyfriend is a guarantee the a 15 year old girl can’t feel suicidal. These examinations are supposed to concentrate on the mental health of the patient, not the circumstances of the conception to see if the psychologist thinks they SHOULD have upset the patient.

As I read this witness’s testimony, the witness is saying that THE CASE FILES do not contain information that would convince THIS witness. In addition, the witness’s further testimony in response to hypotheticals seems to reveal that the witness cannot imagine ANY circumstances, including dangling off the bridge ready to drop into the river, that THIS witness would accept as a credible threat of suicide sufficent to allow ANY pregnant female to escape her ordained role, because in this witness’s opinion, women are supposed to give birth, and everything else in their lives is secondary, and if forcing them to continue the pregnancy takes putting them in a straightjacket in the locked ward of the mental hospital until they deliver, hey, too bad for them. They shouldn’t have had sex. They shouldn’t have been in circumstances where they could be raped. They shouldn’t have obeyed Daddy. They don’t get to kill themselves YET because the precious innocent fetus has to be saved; after it’s safely delivered, who cares? There are lots of others teenage girls out there, having a few of them kill themselves is no bigger a deal than having one-third of gay teens try to commit suicide. It’s not about ‘life’, it’s about making sure people don’t ‘corrupt’ themselves with nasty, filthy sex.

I would add, it is my understanding of Roe v Wade that if a pregnancy is the result of incest, the mental health of the patient is entirely irrelevant to whether the procedure can be done, and the ONLY information necessary to do an abortion on a minor is “pregnancy result of incest” and “mother consents”. Doing a mental health exam in that case is a safeguard necessary only to STOP the procedure if the minor is being coerced into it and will be psychologically harmed.

progo35

I’m sure that’s true, that children give child-like reasons but none of those reasons are sufficient for the diagnosis of a mental illness or the provision of a “life saving” abortion. Moreover, what the heck was this woman thinking when she indicated that one of these individuals should have been committed, but then just let her walk out without a follow up plan? Why did she equate the situations of an unhappy fifteen year old with a boyfriend and that of a suicidal, raped ten year old? Seems to me she should loose her license over those things alone.

progo35

unreadiness for child bearing is not a sufficient, medical reason for a post viability abortion. My seventeen year old birthmother was certainly not ready, that is not a good reason for her to have killed me in a late term abortion, and the responsibility of childrearing has been taken care of by my adoptive parents. Again, why didn’t they simply deliver the children alive if these procedures had to occur? No digoxin shot necessary.

progo35

“How eager y’all are to sit in abusive judgement over the lives of others and particularly the most weak and vulnerable.”

You’d know a lot about that, Colleen.

progo35

And still, no one has answered this question:

So, please explain to me why my assessment is wrong-why are uterine contractions not uterine contractions regardless of the state of the resulting baby (alive or dead)? Why is the physical process of giving birth different when it results in a dead baby? (and it does, this isn’t a mutilated fetus we’re talking about, but an otherwise intact, albeit dead, baby.) What makes uterine contractions leading to a dead baby different and a less traumatic experience than that which results in a live baby?

jennifer-starr

Child bearing and child rearing are two different things. Adoption is the solution to unwanted parenthood, not unwanted pregnancy. And a lot of times a child, particularly a young child, isn’t even aware that they are pregnant until they are well into the pregnancy. Menstruation can begin at any time between the ages of 9-16 but that doesn’t automatically mean that a child’s body is physically ready for giving birth. Or that she should. Can you even imagine how horrible it would be to be in elementary school or Junior High and be pregnant? I would never force a child to go through that.

colleen

What makes uterine contractions leading to a dead baby different and a less traumatic experience than that which results in a live baby?

The fact that the ‘live’ 24 week, 1 1/2 lb fetus you call a ‘baby’ is so underdeveloped that he would struggle for breath and then suffocate?

basiorana

However, unlike in a birth, the children would not be full term, and thus the fetus would either be small enough to pass through the vagina without too much harm to the surrounding tissues or else, because it was dead, could be broken up into smaller parts to be extracted. IN particular the head of the deceased fetus could be collapsed, thus making birth significantly less physically traumatic.

The child could also be unconscious during the procedure, as there would be no risk of anesthesia harming an infant as there is in a birth.

basiorana

Every pregnancy poses a threat to every woman’s life. The period of pregnancy is the most dangerous period of any woman’s life except for the few months after her birth, and the day of delivery is the second most dangerous day of her life after her own day of birth. Under the age of 16, the risk goes up dramatically. However, the healthiest woman is still in mortal danger when she decides to carry a pregnancy to term.

Rape involves vaginal penetration AND CONSENT. As these girls clearly are consenting to the procedure, it cannot be rape.

basiorana

Delivering a live baby at 24-34 weeks means delivering a tiny, underdeveloped baby who will likely have lifelong disease and disability. It means forcing a LIVING, INDEPENDENT CHILD to undergo that. So you have three options: Force a child to suffer through an additional 10-15 weeks of traumatic pregnancy to deliver a larger, healthier babe in a traumatic way; force a child to be born much too early with no medical indication for it and thus expose them to intense pain and suffering; or painlessly stop the heart of a fetus before it is born and thus defined as “alive.” Only one of these is an ethical decision. Yes, if you define the fetus as alive this is euthanasia, but many of us are okay with euthanasia as a means to stop or prevent suffering. Legally, though, it is permissable.

basiorana

If it involves vaginal penetration and a lack of consent, yes.

It’s not rape if she consented to it.

basiorana

24-34 weeks is an incredibly traumatic time to be born. Simply delivering the baby without painlessly euthanizing it would expose it to much pain and suffering. What’s more, since parental consent AND parental financial investment is required to undergo the Herculaen techniques required to save such a baby’s life, the baby would likely die anyway as the parents in this case clearly do not want them to survive, much less to pay millions of dollars to do it. And yes, it is perfectly legal to birth a child and allow them to die rather than undergo the painful procedures requried to artificially keep them alive.

basiorana

24-34 weeks is an incredibly traumatic time to be born. Simply delivering the baby without painlessly euthanizing it would expose it to much pain and suffering. What’s more, since parental consent AND parental financial investment is required to undergo the Herculaen techniques required to save such a baby’s life, the baby would likely die anyway as the parents in this case clearly do not want them to survive, much less to pay millions of dollars to do it. And yes, it is perfectly legal to birth a child and allow them to die rather than undergo the painful procedures requried to artificially keep them alive.

basiorana

She can’t force a child to undergo treatment. She can recommend that they be committed but she has no power to force the girl to have a follow-up plan. Indeed, attempting to force a child into psychiatric care would cause her to lose her license.

And an “unhappy” 15 year old with a boyfriend might be a cutter, might be abused, might have a terrible home life… What is “unhappy?” She could have been profoundly depressed but not suicidal… If she was less resilent she might be worse off emotionally than the 10 year old.

ljean8080

Euthanasia is illegal in most of the US.You do know the disabled can live a good life.

And I don’t understand why you haven’t got it yet that no one is buying your lies here. You know, I really kind of feel pity for you that got adopted into such a (seemingly) fanatical family, instead of a relatively normal, healthy one– Instead, it seems you hate yourself and the rest of woman-kind. Maybe if you got some counseling to adress your “issues”, you would stop forceing your unwellcome views on others, and stop harrassing them when they are NOT breaking the law by controlling the amount of children they have.

elburto

Define ‘disabled’.

That’s right, you can’t, because other than saying a person has a mental or physical issue, there is no other way. Someone born missing a hand, or someone who is born blind is technically only disabled according to the social model of disability. Someone who is born with no higher brain function and unable to do anything for themselves is disabled by any definition.

Someone who loses a limb, or loses sight or hearing is almost always more badly affected than someone born with the same problem. The person with the acquired disability could be said to be more disabled than the person with the congenital issue even if the acquired version is less severe, purely because they were able up to that point.

Some PWD can have good lives, some can’t. You can’t generalise. If I found out I was carrying a child with my condition I’d abort in a second. As it is, the main reason I’m not ever trying to have children is because there is no way of telling if someone has my condition until they’re symptomatic.

It’s absolutely fucking patronising and trite to say how wonderful and inspirational PWD are, to say that every single one of us is capable of a productive and happy life. It’s a lie as well. So stop perpetuating it.

vacabella

rape

noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.

noun

1.

the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

“24-34 weeks is an incredibly traumatic time to be born. Simply delivering the baby without painlessly euthanizing it would expose it to much pain and suffering.”

That is baloney. I was born at 32 weeks in 1982 and I am fine. I did not need to be “painlessly euthanized.” My nephew was born at 25 weeks in 2006 and he is also fine, albeit thanks to state of the art medical care. You cannot allow a child who can breath on it’s own (which babies 28-34 weeks and beyond certainly can) die regardless of what you want as a parent. In order for this to happen you would have to withhold nutrition and hydration and even the most rudimentary oxygen, and that is neglect.

progo35

“24-34 weeks is an incredibly traumatic time to be born. Simply delivering the baby without painlessly euthanizing it would expose it to much pain and suffering.”

That is baloney. I was born at 32 weeks in 1982 and I am fine. I did not need to be “painlessly euthanized.” My nephew was born at 25 weeks in 2006 and he is also fine, albeit thanks to state of the art medical care. Barring some other medical problem, you cannot allow a child who can breath on it’s own (which babies 28-34 weeks and beyond certainly can) die regardless of what you want as a parent. In order for this to happen you would have to withhold nutrition and hydration and even the most rudimentary oxygen, and that is neglect. That is, unless you give birth to a disabled child that needs a simple surgery, which our society doesn’t give a damn about-then you can kill your child via neglect. Otherwise, it’s no go.

Kudos to the RH editors for finally deleting her viscious and irrelevent attack, but if you look on the above page, you will see that I and several others make reference to it. IMO, anyone who would use the sensitive subject of someone’s sexual assault is a low-life who, despite their protestations to the contrary, shows a lack of sympathy for “the weak and vulnerable.”

That’s what I was referring to, not my handicap, Wendy.

And, just for the record, I was not raised by an “extremist” family, I was raised liberal Episcopalian. I hardly think that opposing abortion, particularly in the latter trimesters, makes one an “extremist,” especially if one holds a diverse viewpoints on a variety of subjects.

jennifer-starr

With 24 to 28 week old babies, the survival rate is about 39-50 % at best. Someone born at 30 weeks and up has a much better shot than someone born in the 20 week range. And yes, with state of the art medical intervention there is a shot at survival. However in some cases these babies often have underdeveloped lungs, severe heart problems, and there are parents who choose not to pursue aggressive medical interventions and surgeries that they might not even survive and simply hold their babies and say goodbye. That’s not neglect, that’s simply choosing not to put your child through all that when the hurdles are too great.

progo35

24 weeks, or six months, is quite a bit different than 28 weeks, or 7 months. At that point the baby has had another entire month for its lungs to develop. Your information about premature birth is incorrect. The survival rate for infants based on gestational age can be found at the following website:

As you can see, the survival rate for infants born at 24 weeks is 40-70 %

The survival rate for infants born at or after 27 weeks is 90%

jennifer-starr

It still remains that each case is different, medical issues vary from patient to patient and it is up to parents and the doctors to decide whether or not to pursue aggressive treatment. Some parents choose not to, and that is not neglect.

progo35

Granted. But your statistics were still misleading and inaccurate.

wendy-banks

Look ….. lady, I’m dyslexic. If you have problem with that TFB. The other statment still stands.

And it’s your words here that cause us to think of you as an extremist.

jennifer-starr

And that still does not negate the point I was trying to make; the actual point which you have not yet addressed.

colleen

anyone who would use the sensitive subject of someone’s sexual assault is a low-life who, despite their protestations to the contrary, shows a lack of sympathy for “the weak and vulnerable.”

I don’t think that there are many people who see you as a weak and vulnerable victim. I certainly don’t. Perhaps it’s because you’ve personally and viciously attacked just about everyone who posts here with all the restraint of a Tasmanian Devil.

You have no idea how many times I refrained from responding to some ugly, dishonest and/or condescending thing you’ve said. There have been so many. Reading your posts is always painful. You’ve called me a liar more times than I can count. I forgive you. You’ve attacked my character and person and that of people I admire and respect many, many times. I forgive that too. It’s not worth it to carry your poison around. What I do not forgive is condescending responses to FBIR ending in:

You would do well to make arguments logically rather than appealing to irrational accusations and unfettered emotion.

In a thread where you’re arguing that little girls who were actually raped should be forced to suffer even more and arguing with such a complete lack of logic and coupled with unrestrained rage and no regard at all for their persons, their dignity or their humanity.

You cannot even manage behave decently towards others who have experienced far, far worse than anything you report.

Look, chick, you are so far off base on EVERTHING you have said, or have anything but scorn for ANY of your posts, I find it really hard to feel sorry for you or anything you say. And BTW, I HAVE disclosed about my various illnesses and disablitlies here more that once. I know I make spelling errors– But I also have a IQ of 127. And I read everything scientific I can glom onto.

And, with the exception of the other anti-choicer’s that instist on plaguing us here, no one likes you! Which is why you get voted down to 1.

Well, I’m done feeding the troll now, bubye.

wendy-banks

Why is it when I see stuff like this

with all the restraint of a Tasmanian Devil.

I see this

I think I watched too many cartoons as a kid *laughs*

jennifer-starr

Actually the statistics had very little to do with my point, which was that parents deciding against aggressive medical treatment for a very fragile preemie does not constitute any kind of neglect. But I suspect that you knew that; you’re just choosing to be deliberately obtuse. With your habit of ducking questions, Progo, have you ever considered a career in politics?

~ Of course if the police force someone to take a different route home from work they are not raping anyone. Shows how trivial rape is to you and that you know nothing about it and care nothing about it. You are clueless and hateful. ~

1) When I was raped I did not have soul custody of my body. If I had custody of my body I could have said no, denied someone the use and abuse of my body.

2) Something was in my body against my will.

3) Something was using my body against my will.

4) Something caused me vaginal pain against my will.

5) I had to anticipate having unwanted vaginal pain against my will.

6) I could not say, NO. I wanted to very badly, I was not allowed. Even though it had to do with my body, and my vagina.

7) Someone else FORCED my body to do something and have something in it against my will.

8) Someone else dictated my body and vagina against my will. My fear and me saying no was irrelevant to them, all that mattered was what pleasured them at my physical and emotional expense.

9) I went to sleep sick and scared every night, I wanted it far away from me as soon as possible.

~ Any one forcing me to have extreme unwanted vaginal pain against my will and forcing me to worry and dread it, is raping me. I know these feeling very well. I wanted to say “no” and I could not, my body and vagina was FORCED. It hurt me while others were being pleasured. They did not care, they were very satisfied at my physical and emotional expense. ~

~ What I learned from sexual abuse is anything in my vagina at anytime or place I do not want it there, is “rape”, there is no exceptions. No one should have a right to use or hurt my vagina against my will. Someone else can not offer up my vagina for use and abuse against my will. Any one who wants to do this is a heartless clueless sadomasochistic pro-rape pervert. ~

1)No ones right to life gives them the right to use a womans, little girls, or pregnant rape victims body against her will.

2)No ones right to life gives them the right to cause a women, little girl, or pregnant rape victim vaginal pain against the woman, little girl, or pregnant rape victims will.

3)No ones right to life gives them the right to terrorize any woman, little girl, or pregnant rape victim with anticipation of future vaginal pain against the woman, little girls, or pregnant rape victims will.

4)Any woman, little girl, or pregnant rape victim who can not get an abortion, does not have custody of her own vagina, life, and body.

5)Forced birth, is forced vaginal pain on the woman, little girl, or pregnant rape victim against her will.

~ I speak from experience, there is nothing worse then having to anticipate unwanted vaginal pain and having something in your body when you do not want there. And not being allowed to say “NO” when your body and vagina is involved. The number one right most women and girls want is the right to not have their bodies and vaginas dictated and forced to do something that scares and hurts them. ~

~ I do not have the right to go hook up to my fathers body and use his body against his will. I do not have the right to cause my father unwanted genital pain against his will to save myself. If I attempt these things he has every right to prevent me from doing it to him against his will. Yet I have physical and emotional feelings something embryos and fetuses do not have. ~

progo35

In my opinion, your use of inaccurate statistics in your first post on this matter, in which you cited a 35-50 percent survival rate for infants born between 24-28 weeks, weakens you current argument because it creates an inaccurate picture of the odds such parents face when making such decisions. Ie, your entire point as I read it originally was centered on the contention that the odds facing such infants were so small as to be really terrible, when in fact that odds for survival are in the baby’s favor. Ie, your argument seemed to be centered upon the illogic of prolonging the suffering of an otherwise dying infant, which strengthens the argument for doing nothing, or, from my perspective, “neglecting” an infant. The odds you cited were more accurate for a 22.5-24 week old preemie (40% being the lowest percentage I saw for 24 weeks, which is even higher than the lowest 35% statistic you cited), not a 27 week old one. That is a big difference. A lot of parents might reasonably forgo aggressive treatment for a less than 23 or 24 week old baby because the odds are so slim, but most who are further along, especially those after 27 weeks with a 90 % survival rate, will take the chance with aggressive treatment in order to save their child. Not doing so results in a child who will actually take quite a long time to die and will probably have to be denied food, oxygen, warmth and fluids for this to happen. That is neglect. I also worry that quoting erroneous statistics could potentially misinform any family who is currently doing research on premature birth and what they should do. So, IMO, statistics are relevant to your point. Moreover, like I said, I have a five year old nephew who actually went through all of this when his mom developed preeclampsia in her third trimester. The doctors held the birth off as long as they could, but ultimately they had to deliver him at only 25 weeks to save her life. One of the most important treatments they gave him happened before he was born-a shot of adrenaline to get his lungs to work outside the womb. It was a long road, but insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, the NICU, family and the Ronald McDonald House helped them all get through it. It did not cost my family “millions of dollars” as one other commentator has stated, nor does my nephew suffer from, as she wrote “a lifetime of disease and disability.” If, for instance the preeclampsia had happened a few weeks earlier and they had had to deliver my nephew at 21 or 22 weeks, my sister in law and brother probably would not have chosen aggressive intervention because the odds are extremely slim. But that’s the major difference between 22 and even 23-25 weeks. When my sister in law got to 27 weeks in her second pregnancy, we were thrilled, because we knew that the baby had a 90% chance of making it if he had to be born then. We were even more ecstatic when she reached 30 weeks, because we knew the baby would be all right. So, from the perspective of someone who has had a family member actually deliver a preemie, 27 weeks or more is a freaking blessing to be embraced. So, I’m not just shooting from my hip on this, I know.

progo35

“And an “unhappy” 15 year old with a boyfriend might be a cutter, might be abused, might have a terrible home life… What is “unhappy?” She could have been profoundly depressed but not suicidal… If she was less resilent she might be worse off emotionally than the 10 year old.”

I really, really doubt that last part. First of all, if the 15 year old was cutting, being abused, etc, wouldn’t Nehaus have documented that to strengthen her assessment? Her notes don’t talk about anything like that, so I assume it wasn’t there. Moreover, A ten-year-old body going through any kind of labor (whether in an induced labor abortion or in a birth) is so horrible as to be surreal and semi-inconcievable, but a 15-year-old body, while not completely mature, is much more equipped to handle the labor process. But, that’s kind of my point-I could certainly see why it could be necessary to induce an early labor to save the lives/health of a very young mother going through the tragedy of rape/pregnancy, and I can understand and even support the case for an earlier abortion to prevent a threat to the life of a 9 or 10 year old, but what I cannot “understand” is the idea of inducing labor at 24 weeks or more after stopping the baby’s heart. Even though delivering at 1.5 pounds is easier, at that point it is posible to preserve the lives of all involved. The labor can be induced very early to protect the child giving birth and the resulting child can be given medical treatment in order to protect it. As I said, labor is labor. A c-section is a c-section. The medical situation is going to be the same horrible situation regardless, so I don’t understand the logical impetus behind ending the baby’s life before the labor.

progo35

IMO, my previous comment(s) did not violate RH’s commenting policy, as it was not a viscious, threatening, demeaning attack and was not irrelevent to the discussion, but I’m sorry if it was percieved as such, and/or if I mis-assessed my words and they actually fell under any of those categories. It’s important to be civil.

progo35

As I’ve said, this is an information/debate centered website. I’m not here to engender sympathy or make friends, I’m here to exchange ideas.

prochoiceferret

I really, really doubt that last part. First of all, if the 15 year old was cutting, being abused, etc, wouldn’t Nehaus have documented that to strengthen her assessment? Her notes don’t talk about anything like that, so I assume it wasn’t there.

Then you must not know many mental-health professionals, who are often very careful as to what they write in their notes—precisely because that information could be subpoenaed and the privacy of patients and possibly other individuals compromised.

but what I cannot “understand” is the idea of inducing labor at 24 weeks or more after stopping the baby’s heart.

That’s a pretty good clue that you’re not a medical professional.

Even though delivering at 1.5 pounds is easier, at that point it is posible to preserve the lives of all involved.

It’s also possible to sell everything you own and give your money to the poor. Doesn’t mean you’re under any obligation or expectation whatsoever to do it.

The labor can be induced very early to protect the child giving birth and the resulting child can be given medical treatment in order to protect it.

An elective premature birth??

The medical situation is going to be the same horrible situation regardless,

I’m sorry, what were your medical credentials again?

so I don’t understand the logical impetus behind ending the baby’s life before the labor.

From the looks of it, that’s not the only thing you don’t understand.

crowepps

Your posts can be broadly divided into three catagories: “I don’t understand why this happens/why they do that”, “everything that happens is because everybody hates the disabled”, and “I think the other posters here are all vile because they’re ProChoice”.

Those are not ‘ideas’. They are, respectively, ignorance, defensiveness and prejudice.

forced-birth-rape

Sorry.

progo35

I never said “the other posters here are vile because they’re pro choice,” or expressed anything approaching that level of vitriol. My sister in law is adamently pro choice and I really love, respect, and look up to her as a person. The pastor of my church is pro choice and I am close to her, too. I just don’t agree with thier stance. I do, however, feel that in a debate setting, people should be free to disagree and say what they are thinking as long as they do not engage in personal, viscious attacks.

We’ve gone around the clock on the disability thing, so we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Some of the points made here do seem rather illogical to me, hence the confusion over why it is is felt that certain things must happen as they do.

IMO, the following are some of the “ideas” that I have articulated

-The widespread use of abortion to address non fatal fetal anomalies that will result in a disabled child being born, and the medical community’s eagerness to encourage termination in such cases represents eugenics/the medical community usually pushes women towards termination because our society fears disability.

-Abortion should be restricted

-Contraception of all kinds should be available, including IUDs, though I wouldn’t personally use or reccommend an IUD, as my own mother experienced major complications from one

-LGBT people should have the same rights as everyone else

-Futile Care Laws are something that Pro LIfe and Pro Choice individuals can address together

-Euthanasia/Assisted Suicide represent prejudice against the disabled

-Universal healthcare is a good idea

You may or may not agree with such ideas, but they are, nonetheless, ideas.

crowepps

“say what they are thinking as long as they do not engage in personal, viscious attacks.”

Labeling other people bigots/prejudiced and insisting they fear/hate the disabled IS a personal, viscious attack.